Philosophy – “On the Connection of Prejudice with the Celebration of Diversity” – 1/16/2022

“What else is different, other than what we can notice, at first glance? Upon the surface, there lies the difference. Beyond the surface, we notice something else. We notice ourselves.”

– Modern Romanticism

There is nothing diverse between humans, other than what we see, at first glance. The way a person who is familiar with art can tell the difference between styles is the same in one person telling the same kind of difference, always existent upon the surface. Upon the surface, there lies the difference. If an experienced artist also knowledgeable of differing art styles can read, at first glance, a Van Gogh painting from a Rembrandt painting, it is not the same in understanding the art. When an artist wants to be understood, they cannot without specific trials from the viewer. For how a person, not an artist, wants to be understood, there will be involvement of those same trials from another, who is a viewer, to get past both prejudice and the surface.

Diversity believes in the celebration of what is different, though what is different is always noticed at first glance. We see difference, immediately. We are also instantly hesitant to approach, to understand someone, soon when we see that difference. Then, to celebrate diversity among peoples is to perhaps unknowingly feed into prejudice.

Cultures are different, though it is the same as art. A style. If we can notice Mexican culture from a simple detail as a sombrero, to French cuisine in another spot of their life as the breakfast crepe, we can tell what is different from the surface. We walk into another country to see the lives among it, though again, these differences are only upon the surface. When we, as humans, are willing to see beyond the surface, this becomes both a negative and a positive. First, we would no longer notice what is different among culture and art forms. Second, we would no longer be prejudiced, because we always exhibit this trait whenever we are fearful to come closer to understand something other than what is instantly recognized.

For what is different, that is the surface. For what is the same, that is beyond the exterior to where a person can say to another, “We are the alike.”

While an artist would like to be understood, they have no choice other than to reveal their art style, being the identity of themselves, upon the surface of their work. The same as a race to a person, this art style will be immediately recognized. However, that is all that is recognized, when a person sees the exterior. Should a viewer examine closer, they will see something else. They’ll notice themselves. How many restaurants does a person pass, within their vehicle in some other direction? Had they seen the culture that creates the food, within the cuisine. All these are the differences of art. However, to know the cook to such meals, in those restaurants, and then to befriend them, one sees themselves. One sees what is the same, of both. There is then neither the difference in art, nor the difference in background. There are only humans.

Humans comprehend each other in seeing something that has always been there. What is different, for the surfaces, exists only to conceal what is the same.

Philosophy – “Why Progress is Limited” – 8/2/2021

“How can humanity achieve its feats if under constant pressure due to such limitations as time, as illness, as poverty? We are unable to build, if all we’re content with is destruction. If we are left with dissection, we learn, and yet, we are left with useless knowledge. We cannot bind, if all we do is break. Nor can we, if we mean to break, find our wisdom when things are left shattered.”

– Modern Romanticism

Today’s focus on “difference” and “diversity” is the sign that progress is reaching its limit.

Progress is only ever achievable through a recognition of similarities. When things work, we can break limits. Though, when people compete in their differences, able to be stagnantly proud to them, then there is no progress. There is the mere appearance that has no function for itself.

If science gathers data and knowledge, then such findings prove to be useless without a place for their application. It is to say that without a societal focus on similarities, more knowledge becomes increasingly insufficient. Dissatisfaction becomes the focus to those obsessed with difference, since their desire for greater choice comes at the cost for what functions. If what is meant to function cannot, then it was because more had been broken, than what had been mended.

Continue reading “Philosophy – “Why Progress is Limited” – 8/2/2021″

Philosophy – “Why People are not so Different” – 6/27/2021

“It is those most prejudiced who thrive in the sheer desire to be different. To them, another’s distrust or simple dislike to their difference, becomes their empowerment. A taste of power, to the modern individual, is just as the average dictator’s liking of a population’s fear that is grown through the same distrust.”

– Modern Romanticism

Prejudice clings to the notion of difference. As humans, we are different, if just on the surface. We are not so much different, within ourselves.

To think on book covers, in this regard, is through the understanding of preference. With preferences, brought through what is believed to be least or most convenient to an individual, is understood to those differing details upon the surface. We comprehend, in modern days, what is most “available” or “accessible” to ourselves. It is rare to a be a witness to a sight of a one who understands that everything either available or accessible has been the realest of shared understandings between people.

We avoid this truth, just as we avoid others. It is the truth that states two humans are alike, through connective traits marked to be the most fragile aspects among a person. Two humans, so alike, are so in what is avoided within the other. That is, these connective traits encompass all what a person is not willing to admit. It is the hurt, the emotions that reveal human fault, as no one admits this due to wanting more for the sake of being different.

We spread more colors upon the surface, than we do in showing what is colorful within ourselves.

Nothing is least different, between humans, than what is within them. Their lack of admittance to this truth is through the desire to be different. Though, in believing themselves as different, the result is a shield against understanding to become mutual.

Distrust and prejudice is bred from a belief in difference. Beyond the surface, beyond the book cover, there are the details throughout their infinity.

Within a person, there is much to learn.

Philosophy – “Why Money cannot Buy Happiness – Same as Love is not a Choice” – 5/29/2021

“The material. It cannot substitute the lack of the immaterial. To anyone who disagrees that love is no choice, it should then be safe to assume they want something as money to be the route to their heart.”

– Modern Romanticism

Is love a game? It is not, objectively speaking. Life is the game, because when it is lost, we leave behind what was more than perhaps the money alongside a will. We can cheat to become free, in the material gain of it. Though, it is not so much the case that we can deceive our way to something earned.

Love is not a game, because it supposes itself as the matter of nothing earned, nor anything cheated to gain. We do not gain love, since we gain respect. We do not earn love, since we earn trust. We cannot fully earn respect, when it is an option to cheat to gain it, just as we can place the same reputation upon ourselves for others to fear us. We cannot gain trust, because deception or cheating is not an option when a lie’s vulnerability is to its exposure.

What would love then be? Since it cannot be earned, nor gained, then it must place itself as the immaterial and invisible non-existence a person is limited to only believing in.

It is to be said that we believe in another, through love, that we might see to the depths of themselves. For truths that were not seen by that individual, masked either by what was cheated to be gained or through deception unto fragile trust, and then we unearth them. We unearth the truths that the external individual had not seen, because perception to the self is always limited.

We trust in God, because we believe in Him. We trust in love, because we believe in it. We merely believe that such exists, because there is no evidence until it is found. When it is discovered, it is for only one time.

Though, it is the material that could purchase evidence through deception, for its gain. It is the material that through a choice, becomes a wrong. Love is no choice, because the material cannot substitute it. If one disagrees, then one is content with turning to addiction after tragedy.

Love is no choice. It is the epitome of all objective correctness, in the universe.

Then, to want a sheer choice, outside of love, either through what is earned or merely obtained, is to excuse oneself away from committing to correctness. It is to have more commitment for fear and simple tolerance, over love and warm acceptance. One corrects, through love, because the imperfections that one perfects is the same for how a person unearths disguised truths within someone else. To perfect an imperfection is to bring to light what was held in darkness, because one should know that the lie is never the human.

Philosophy – “The Importance of Black & White Decisions” – 5/21/2021

“Between choosing what is right or what is wrong comes down to having no choice but the correct one or to have infinite excuses to never make the correct choice.”

– Modern Romanticism

Some would shun away from such a notion that there is “right” or “wrong” within a set of choices. Even if those choices happen to be among the dozens or hundreds, then just like a tournament, it will dwindle down to just two.

No one wishes for a third choice, unless one wants to make an excuse. Out of those two, instinct, in terms of a person’s bravery, would draw them, as the individual, towards what is correct to choose. Out of the hundreds, or thousands, or millions, up to the infinite amount of choices to make, all comes down to a duality. A parallel, of sorts, because to have a decision to make is to exclude distractions and the excess.

To any of two choices, one will prevail, while the other will be discarded. It is to say, for anyone who can comprehend this, that to have one choice is to have none at all. That is where instinct comes into play. Because, when one makes the correct choice, one did not choose. One merely chose what was right, as it required no time to contemplate. It is to say that one already knew what to choose, before the options were open. Between familiarity and something that is alien and unfamiliar, there is simply the choice between the singular former and the plural latter.

The factor of “responsibility” does not enter for the decision, itself. It enters during the consequences of the decision. The decision, that was indeed a decision, bringing about cause and effect. Crime and punishment. Such is what a decision makes it out to be. The more choice, the more wrongdoing. The less choice, the more creation.

Would a woman, who decides on an abortion, comprehend any of the above? That, for her to make a choice, is to excuse the responsibility of consequence? Or, to excuse the consequence of responsibility? If she chooses for it, then she has chosen a method for destruction, being the incorrect one. For her to fight for choice, is to fight for excuse. It is, however, the opposite when a mother would find it nearly impossible to choose a child out of two, already grown, to die, when a criminal is pointing a gun at either or. Such a mother, with two grown children, would not be choosing for her offspring to live. Since all choices comes down to the death of correctness (or creation), then it is all rightness behind such correctness that would not be a choice.

We either choose to die, or to have no choice but to live so that we may be responsible for the consequences of our choices. All mistakes are based on a choice, because if we never learned from our errors, then we’d keep making excuses to never form wisdom. Though, when we do learn from our mistakes, we then have no choice but to the correct path. Unless, of course, we did not actually learn, though merely deceived everyone for regained trust.

Of decisions that have caused others, or ourselves, the pain, this is where individualism glows the brightest. It is so a person may see and objectively understand their mistakes, formed from endless excuse.

If we excuse responsibility, then we do the same for life. We would be negligent of it, or to simply outright destroy it.

Philosophy – “Why Diversity of Thought has Originated all other Diversity” – 5/13/2021

“Control the origin and you control the outcome.”

– Modern Romanticism

As some might believe that certain thoughts or types of speech might come across as “hateful”, is nothing short of what stems from the wrong in that ideology.

Speech cannot be hateful, though can act as a reminder. Just as through a wedding or funeral, we either create or remember old memories, with the words that come across as peaceful; nothing of this is based around hatred. Speech is inherently peaceful. Though, the problem some might have with a collection of words, is through how it causes a person to remember. For if a statement of criticism could remind a person of their flaws, they’ll want to repress that trauma.

It is a pettiness to consider that words should be refrained from their usage, especially if the remembrance that comes forth from them is the unvarnished truth.

If to speak is to evoke reminder, then it is to the person who believes speech can be hateful who wishes to never remember what hurts them. Though, it would be the truth, just as any PTSD patient might never want to recall what keeps them from moving forward.

Related to speech, there is its diversity. It is a diversity for what is remembered, though can make up the division in each fragment to a memory. If a memory is fragmented, then so is perhaps the self. If trauma clings to a person, by way of repressed memories, then this is the sole reason a person would state certain speech to be “hateful”. It’s the same reason a person, of this nature, would prefer deception.

Even if not for the sake of trauma, to silence certain speech opens the path to deception. It will make one believe in all words, versus what is specific or meant to be trusted. It means to silence the truth, because deception can come from anywhere.

If the origin is among speech or thoughts, to also have reference to memories, then we can compare a term as “original” to “what is past”, not “what is new”.

Speech or thought would originate all other diversity. A new idea is born from a thought, brought forth in sensible and comprehensible speech. Truth is, to ourselves, a recognizable trait. Deception is then, through this, something that can come from anywhere, referencing the uncertainties within the future. If something can come from “any” place, then it is the “no place” where it originates, tapping into our fears and uncertainties for its unknown presence.

We cannot state for a belief that diversity is everything among newness, without welcoming deception. Welcome deception, and then one forgets the origin for creativity towards the future. Again, diversity’s origin is within thought, then translated into speech. To control certain influxes of thoughts that are displayed to us as speech, is to control all other outcomes of this origin to diversity. It is to admit that the people who wish to present themselves as “diverse” to the world, are being lied to by their encouragers.

Philosophy – “Why Representation is a Lie” – 4/14/2021

“Those prideful of being ‘represented’, for appearance’s sake, in a workforce of utility can only be described as the ones who believe ugliness can be a form of beauty.”

– Modern Romanticism

It is the ugliness of toil, to the creation of something beautiful, that separates both.

Poverty is not beautiful, as it should never be called such. It will only ever make poverty remain stagnant. People work, they toil, to make something of themselves. It is the toil that is the ugliness. It is the creation that becomes beautiful. To make something of oneself involves transfiguration, to become something better than the current person one is. That is beauty.

Beauty is a betterment of a former kind, not an acceptance of other supposed types. If it is ever the latter, then beauty becomes ugliness by way of what hideous stands for. Hideous is only ever the shattering or the destruction of creation. It is the death of a life, that represents this hideousness. If we, as people, ever believe ugliness can be beautiful, then we have thrown out the standard of preservation. However, only in the manner of excessive comfort, without the discipline that pain brings, can we be this way.

Rising above a current state, a meager stature where one has remained stagnant, is to become beautiful, is to create, is to make something of oneself. Love has no place, if we expect it to be handed to us, before us. We comprehend who we are. We should remember our identity.

An identity is not a discovery. It is a reminder of our universal selves. It is deceit that dominates a person’s mind, when they believe that “who they are” has “yet to be understood”. It is a deception, because what can be understood, to any person, is that what is made of oneself is a betterment of who they are, not directly of their identity.

Representation is the pride, inhabited in the mind, of one who cannot differ beauty from ugliness simply by understanding the notion that to make something of the self has nothing to do with appearances. It is to comprehend that appearances are stagnant, do not move, though are there to move others. If one is proud of simply being represented, then they are like the artwork hung upon the wall for viewing eyes. Inspiration for others, yet stagnancy for the self.

One is finished in “representation”, just as the artwork. A completed picture, and unable to progress the self any further.

Philosophy – “Why a Choice shows Comparison to Objectification” – 4/9/2021

“All that a person chooses compares to death. We choose death, because we cannot select between who should live. Therefore, in all that compares to a choice, relates always to what makes life temporary. Death.”

– Modern Romanticism

If we can choose, then it will be the object, or of everything according to something so inhuman and lifeless as such. An object shows no signs of humanity. An object compares to death, because nothing of the beloved life will be chosen for its continuance. To love life, means not to choose it. To love life, means to reject the offering of death.

It is because death will embrace the one who has no more to lose, except for their life. No more to love, for that makes the last thing to be welcome into Death’s arms of the one who cannot stand existence.

Life is no comparison to an object, though choice will always relate to the objectification of life. To choose a life, is not to embrace a calling. If we feel proper to do whatever is our passion, then it is not a choice to become what we love. For we will feel as though we can be no better, do no worse, than what is meant for us, by what is personally satisfactory. It is the embrace of what we are called to do, that we, ourselves, feel as though we are alive.

Choosing an object is much like selecting who shall die. If an executioner must point their finger to the lives, it is their control over them that will draw them unto death. Though, even according to death, it relates to an ending before another beginning. If one’s former way to live is being replaced by another, is still to say that one is not treated as the human. It is still to say that their life is not one, though they’ve merely been selected because they are an object.

It is to say that if the employer chooses between the candidates for the position, then they are, to figuratively speak of this, the executioner who is making a replacement for an unfilled space. No humanity is within selection. It is only the consideration of self-benefit, of the selfish need to objectify oneself through death, that one embeds themselves into instant gratification.

10 Reasons why Love has no Relation to Consumerism – 4/8/2021

1. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, in that it has nothing to do with division.

2. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself relates to never having a choice.

3. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mind has more to do with wanting an excuse, being able to reason, and having infinite choices.

4. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because “having a choice” would be more oriented towards cheating or committing infidelity.

5. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself has more of a relation to honesty. It is honesty that has a relation to a lack of freedom or a lack of the ability to excuse oneself.

6. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because it bases itself on remembered standards, which the consumerist mindset has none.

7. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset has more of an affiliation with easily-manipulated & exploitable feelings, over anything eternal.

8. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself has nothing to do with manipulation. It is manipulation that compares to the ability to reason, and then to wriggle oneself out of responsibility.

9. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset has a better comparison to freedom. It is the concept of freedom and infinite choice that limits itself in terms of a value’s longevity, to be more aligned with worth for the infinite amount.

10. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset comprehends infinite choice as the independence of the person. It is independence that compels a person to rebel against the past, for which love encompasses.

Philosophy – “Why Representation can go to Hell” – 3/24/2021

“Whether decided to be qualified enough for a position, is not for the display of yourself upon the pedestal. Even choosing between the apple or the orange is considered for either’s health properties, not for how it appears.”

– Modern Romanticism

You are useful. You should not wish for distrusted sorts to tell you that you appear beautiful. You are not meant to be accepted by your appearances. Instead, you are meant to be accepted by what you can do. You have only one mother. And, you have only one father.

If weak-enough people deem all as meant to be their mothers, then they are insecure. They are addicted to comfort. As a mother will always tell her child that he or she is simply “good enough”, it has also become the common rhetoric of the 21st century. Being perfect enough or good enough is not ever for the ground of function. One can always become better, in terms of function. Though, to better oneself on appearances will only enhance insecurity. It is because one is always insecure when considering their appearances, never for anything else.

One is not insecure for anything other than appearances. This is due to the state of being secure, simply means one is being guarded. Guarded, that is, for beauty. If beauty is taken into consideration by the protector, then it means that they believe the beautiful one to be weak. Though, among people, even of women who display this same rhetoric of wanting to protect themselves, fail to comprehend that capability is there to protect others, not the self. One is never capable for the self, though possesses their skills for the necessity of preserving life. Protection, that is, meaning that the role behind function is of the ugliness to the toiled human form being able to either construct or reconstruct beauty.

If to be secure means to have protection near, so that one’s appearances could be “accepted”, then representation merely displays a person as guarded enough because they are weak. As in, they are meant for their minds to be kept wholly in unwavering dependence on their protector. That is, if the workforce has gained a wish to “represent” the so-called “unrepresented diversities” of the world, it merely means there are certain people who can be deemed as needing to drop their strengths and skills. Such means, their security will come by way of complete and unshakable dependence.

It is now to be said that when a person relies entirely on the protector to guard their own appearance, the “motherhood” aspect of this becomes realized. That is, through the addiction of comfort, we can believe ourselves either perfect or good enough, though never strive for betterment in terms of our skills. As another’s protection will simply delude ourselves into thinking that we are good enough to the protector, then it is our capabilities that remain stagnant to never be improved. It is that the desire for one’s representation is a weakness that stunts individualism.

Again, appearances are what are secured, not one’s skills nor their function. If one’s body is the sight of either what is beautiful or functional, then it is to the latter that shall protect the former. It is always what is functional of this world that protects the beautiful.

It is out of our dependence upon what we comprehend to never betray nor abandon ourselves, being of what we can fully trust, is how we are protected or secured. It is the ugliness to the human form, toiled, battered and vulnerable by a day’s worth of protection, symbolizes how it serves to protect what should be preserved.

Nothing of our functions, when the workforce has garnered a wish to “represent” certain sorts out of their appearances, could be accepted when such a realm has its focus on security. All the more security for those who are insecure enough in their appearances, merely extends the view that these certain sorts should indeed remain weak and increasingly dependent. No person, so dependent on their appearances to be guarded, in their display of being represented in the sense of being diverse, can rely at all upon their own functions or skills. In being weak, a person has no need to guard. Though, were such “represented” people to be strong, they’d find more of a need to protect others.

Philosophy – “A Critique against LGBTQ” – 3/12/2021

“Knowing the self, being a place of limitation, being then what a human is. A source of imperfection. Inclusiveness is, therefore, not the way to involve the everything or anything of the world.”

– Modern Romanticism

Inclusiveness resides upon the involvement of those who are said to not be respected for “who they are”. Yet, their involvement is not ever thought upon, in regards to their capability. A fault with equity is to involve a person, though only upon the supposed knowledge of “who they are”. And, just what is a person known by? If not for their limitations as humans, then perhaps for their drive to be perfect? If to “know a person” does not revolve around comprehending another, as a human, then what for?

It is always the knowledge of another person or of oneself, that relates to them or the self, as a human. Though, the LGBTQ community are there to encourage the world to “involve” those who are never accepted for “who they are”. And, is it in our place to understand “who they are”, if we can believe their limitations should be voided? If not to understand a person by their limits, then perhaps we are simply arrogant and delusional.

If it is not mental illness to be a transgender, then is the former, not the latter, not delusion? And, if we are never delusional while being mentally ill, then is merely the acceptance of certain sorts only there for the inclusiveness of pure incapability? Those who are mentally ill are mainly incapable, though more-so because we are ignorant of what they are capable of doing.

Capability and incapability sticks as the back-to-back resonation for “knowing who a person is”. As we are incapable of understanding someone for their perfections, then it should be comprehensive enough to believe we are instead capable of knowing them for how they relate to us. However, with differing identities, that is more often the case, among the LGBTQ world, as an impossibility. An introduction should not be forced. Diversity is not meant to be forced. That is because an introduction from someone else, in relation to themselves as a fellow human, comes to us as simply natural. It is voided of the artificial nature of force.

Does life force itself? No, though death does. Death is the only thing forced upon. And, since this resides among the place of fear, then the word “tolerance” encompasses the same. As it is, we can only ever tolerate what we are forced to bear with. We can accept what we are friendly towards, because the naturalism of its introduction was never forced. Instead, that naturalistic way was an example of ourselves, as well. As in, it was an example of what should be, not what shouldn’t.

For what should be in this world, is the person who believe they can be everything. Even among those who dream or are ambitious and delusional enough to think they are never incorrect upon what they do, always end up at a point where they discover sheer impossibility.

To be capable or to be its opposite, shows ourselves, in contrast from LGBTQ, that life is a stockpile of what we can do versus what we cannot. It is never to “know ourselves” nor to “know another” in the belief they are a human, when we’ve kept comprehending them as capable of doing anything. As it is, that’s the same thing as using them.

Philosophy – “Why Hate is not a Free Emotion” – 3/10/2021

“From love, people will trust. From betrayal, people will hate.”

– Modern Romanticism

Hatred is circumstantial as to who becomes the unfortunate soul to be targeted, by it. Though, by the one fused to this suffocating emotion, can be when a lie is what has convinced them that someone has caused betrayal. Through this delusion, hatred can be born. Deception is indeed sometimes the route that causes a person to be sunken into hatred. Though, as a suffocating emotion, it cannot be felt freely. As in, hate is impossible to feel, towards a race, towards a gender, towards a religion, towards a nation, or towards anyone or anything broad and numbered, within itself.

Individuals hate others of the same singular, though only when love unto trust was the scenario, first of all. Love unto trust, and then, when hatred was the next transformation, it was only due to a perceived betrayal that brought the hateful person low. It was love unto trust, because as hatred is no free emotion, it is always specific as to who is targeted. Specific, since hatred came from trust. Utmost trust, and when it is slashed, the perceived betrayal caused the now specific feeling of hatred to be birthed.

We cannot hate a race, nor can a man hate all women. What we can do, out of prejudice, is simply not know another. Therefore, it is prejudice that relates only to ignorance, not hatred. Though, no media would tell of racism or whatever form of prejudice through a slogan such as “stop the fear”, because that raises the idea of mutual vulnerability. If that were the new idea to speak upon, there would be unity. People would begin to question whether there is mutual vulnerability between those who fear each other, rather than employing a word like “hatred” to deceive others into believing it is one-sided.

For hatred is that, being a one-sided emotion, targeted as specific. Through the deception that makes other believe that racism or some other form of prejudice can be one-sided, it is why they utilize the word called “hate”. It is them that believe that perhaps a racist person, who might be white of skin-tone, is ever only the type to be of such an ignorant mindset.

That is to say that if any certain person cannot be prejudiced, would mean that they are incapable of feeling fear. Since it is fear that has a relation to ignorance, out of common examples of people who are reluctant to get to know another person, someone who cannot be prejudiced also cannot be afraid. It might be right to admit that a person who cannot feel afraid, would also not be needed for education. Such a latter point refers to the media’s excessive usage of the word “hate”, referencing also a one-sided understanding of prejudice, deluding a person into believing education, which would alleviate ignorance, is unneeded.

Would a black person, sometimes said to possess the immunity to racism, not ever feel fear or be anxious? If that were the case, then ignorance has rocketed itself to the level where we might even one day believe that people within black communities don’t suffer from blood pressure issues.

Without feeling fear, one would be incapable of having a high blood pressure, or even a living heartbeat or pulse. We could even admit, aloud, that those who unable to perhaps be prejudiced are vampires or zombies, without heartbeats or even a working lower brain.

Why would we require education, if everyone can freely state the words, “I hate everyone”? And, why would we require education, if someone can say about the prejudiced person that they are “hateful”? It would be evident, through hatred, that we knew a person, upon a time in our lives.